Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  November 8, 2014 2:00am-4:01am EST

2:00 am
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] next, president obama must remarks and his meeting with congressional leaders. elections.e midterm after that, ed gillespie announcing he is conceding the virginia senate race. >> this weekend on the c-span on saturday, a debate on the future of the internet. and tavis smiley on his latest book, death of a king.
2:01 am
book tv pots afterwards, jeff chang on the idea of racial progress. what makes us different to other species. the social 8:00, prejudice immigrants faced during the 1800s. and the 20th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. find the television schedule. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us. us.il send us a tweet . join the conversation to read like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. president obama held his first cabinet meeting since tuesday plus elections. -- tuesday's elections.
2:02 am
he discusses the new economic numbers which include private-sector jobs and the drop in the unemployment rate. >> well, this morning we learned that in october, businesses added 209,000 new jobs. the unemployment rate fell again. the private sector has added 10.6 million new jobs over the last 56 months. this is the strongest job growth that we have seen since the 1990's. all this is a testament to the hard work and resilience of the american people. they have been steady and strong digging themselves out of the worst economic crisis since the great depression and what we need now to do is make sure we build on this momentum because we recognize that despite the solid growth, despite the drop in unemployment, there are still a lot of folks out there who are anxious about their futures, who
2:03 am
are having trouble making ends meet at the end of the month or saving for the future college education or being able to make sure that they are able to retire with dignity and respect. and so everything that we do over the next two years is designed and geared towards insuring that folks who work hard in this country are able to get ahead. obviously we had a significant midterm election. as i said at the press conference, my attitude has been and will continue to be that good ideas don't necessarily come from just one party and i'm looking forward to seeing the leaders of both democrat and republican caucuses this afternoon. let's have a chance to share with them both what i think we need to be doing to build on the economic momentum that we already have and make it even stronger, but i'm also going to be interested in listening to
2:04 am
them in terms of areas where we think it's possible to work together, whether that is putting people back to work through stronger manufacturing here in the united states and selling more to countries around the world is one of the major topics we're going to be discussing during my asia trip next week, whether it's figuring out how we can build on some modest new investments that we have been making in early childhood education, we know that works and there is strong bipartisan support around the country for some of those investments. let's see if he we can do more. all of these issues are ones in which there is a strong possibility bipartisan cooperation as long as we set politics aside for a moment and focus on the people who actually sent us here. in the meantime, in these regular meetings that i'm having with my cabinet, i have been emphasizing to them from day one and will reiterate in this meeting the fact that separate
2:05 am
and apart from legislative activity, we have the capacity to continually improve how we deliver services to the american people. a part of what's happened over a quarter to several decades is that people sometimes feel as if the federal government is distant and it's not customer friendly and there is too much bureaucracy and because of the fine work of many of the members of this cabinet, what we have been able to do is start chipping away at some of the old ways of doing business and start substituting new ways of doing business to improve customer service but make sure the people are getting the help they need. we got the chance to welcome and have a conversation with our new secretary of veterans affairs, bob mcdonald, who is coming from the private sector, but also is coming from west point and an extraordinary legacy of service
2:06 am
in our armed forces and what we're already seeing is that bob is able to start skimming down the wait times for people in terms of appointments they need but reducing homelessness for example with our h.u.d. secretary donovan and now castro, we decreased homelessness by 30%. a lot isn't by new legislation, it's about us focusing more on these problems and managing them better and continually listening to the american people to see how we can be more helpful. so there are a lot of opportunities for us to do that here today. i think we're going to take an inventory on the progress that's being made in various departments. we're also going to focus on the fact that between now and the end of the year, there is still immediate work that needs to be done. we have made progress in
2:07 am
building the kind of public health infrastructure we need to deal with any eventualities with respect to ebola, it's a concern domestically but most importantly, a concern internationally. we'll get reports from those who have been actively involved in that fight and ron will tell us how the work we need to be doing with congress can help advance and ultimately stamp out this epidemic overseas to make sure the american people are safe. we also have some significant national security issues. we got to make sure that our efforts against isil are probably funded. that is an opportunity for secretary of defense hagel to brief us on the progress in our campaign against isil in iraq and our work in syria of the bottom line is that as i have
2:08 am
told my white house staff, i have shared in the past with many of my cabinet, we are extraordinarily privileged to be in a position where every single day we can have a positive impact in some way on the lives of the american people. and what i have started out on this journey with joe biden and we traveled around the country, we were constantly reminded of the hard work, the accepts of -- sense of community, the sense of family that exists in every pocket and every corner of this country, the same kinds of values that joe grew up on and i grew up on. and what we want to do is make sure that between now and the time that the next administration takes over that every single day and every single agency we are constantly finding ways to build on those values and to make sure that we
2:09 am
are making this country safer and more prosperous. i know that based on the conversations i have had with this cabinet, there is no lack of enthusiasm or energy in achieving that goal. all right. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. >> the president also met with congressional leaders from both parties today at the white house and made these brief remarks before the start of the lunch. >> while i want to thank the leadership of both of the house and the senate for being here for this lunch post-election.
2:10 am
as i said the other night, obviously the public has had a good night and i congratulated mitch mcconnell and speaker boehner for running very strong campaigns. as i also said the day after the election, what we have seen now for a number of cycles is that the american people just want to see work done here in washington. i think they're frustrated by the gridlock. they would like to see more cooperation and i think all of us have the responsibility, me in particular, to try to make that happen. and so this gives us a good opportunity to explore where we can make progress on behalf of the people who sent us here. the good news is today we saw another good set of jobs numbers. we now have had 56 consecutive months of job growth, up more than 10.6 million jobs have been created and the unemployment rate now is down to 5.8%. so business is out there
2:11 am
investing, hiring. the economic indicators are going in the right direction. as i travel to asia for the g-20 summit, i'm going to be able to say we have created more jobs here in the united states than every other advanced country combined and they notice that we're doing something right here, but what we also know is that the american people are still anxious about their futures and that means that what we can do together to ensure that young people can afford college, what we can do together to rebuild our infrastructure so that we're competitive going forward. what we can do together to make sure we have a tax system that is fair and simple and unleashes the dynamism of the economy. what we can could together to keep the progress we have been making in reducing the deficit while still making the investments we need to grow. those are where i'm interested
2:12 am
in hearing and sharing ideas. i am committed to both speaker boehner and leader mcconnell is that i am not going to judge ideas based on whether they're democrat or republican, i'm going to be judging them based on whether or not they work. i'm confident that they want to produce results as well on behalf of the american people. so i appreciate their graciousness in coming here and i'm very much looking forward to giving them some updates on progress we've been making on issues like ebola and isil. there are some specific work that has to get done the next several weeks before the new congress commences and my hope is that even as we enter it into a new congress, the previous congress has the opportunity to still make progress on a whole bunch of fronts and i'm confident we can get that done.
2:13 am
so thank you, again. appreciate it. you're going to be the first to find out, major, along with everybody else. thank you, everybody. thank you. >> president obama has chosen a federal prosecutor in new york to become the next attorney general. u.s. attorneyis a who attended harvard. she would replace eric holder as the head of the justice department. she would be the first african-american to hold the post. we will have live coverage tomorrow. >> the chair of the republican national committee is hoping the
2:14 am
operations and fundraising that helped you gop takeover congress will continue as they look ahead to 2016. he spoke for an hour at the christian science monitor's breakfast series in washington, d.c. ok, folks, here we go. thanks for coming, i'm dave cook from the monitor, our guest this morning is chairman of the republican national committee. his last visit with the group was in march of this year and we thank him for coming back. our guest has had a lifelong interest in politics, according to a profile jeff wrote for the times, he was the self-appointed campaign manager for ronald reagan's presidential bid at pleasant prairie elementary school in wisconsin. jeff will have to tell us, yeah, it was -- >> it was true.
2:15 am
>> it was a great profile anyway, jeff. he went on to earn his bachelors degree from the university of wisconsin white water. he worked as a committee staffer in the wisconsin legs la tour before moving to warmer climbs to continue his education earning a law degree from the university of miami. after several clerkships, he practiced corporate law, ran unsuccessfully for the wisconsin senate and in 2007 was elected chairman of the wisconsin republican party, the youngest person ever to hold that job. in 2009 he became general counsel of the republican national committee and in january of 2011 became r.n.c. chair. he was re-elected in january of 2013. the chairman and his wife sally have two young children. thus endeth the biographical part of the program. now the recitation of ground
2:16 am
rules. as always, we're on the record here. please no live blogging or tweeting and in short no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway to give us time to actually listen to what the guest says. there is no embargo when the session ends. to help you resist that relentless selfie urge, we will email several pictures of the session to all of the reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends. as regular attendees know, if you would like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal and i'll call on one and all in the time available. one other thing, we strive to operate in a strictly nonpartisan fashion. let me note, we have invited his counterpart at d.n.c. to have breakfast with us and hope she'll accept soon. we ask our guest to make opening comments and move to questions around the table. for that, thanks for doing it, sir. >> thank you, i want to get to your questions quickly. i just have a few comments to make before we open it up. number one, tuesday's election was a big night.
2:17 am
it was a wave election and we didn't squeak by. we won by a large margin and i remember when i was here in march, if you remember that, i said it was going to be a tsunami and obviously some people thought that that was kind of an irresponsible or overly excited type of comment to make, but the wave, we didn't think it was inevitable, as recently as last week, democrats were predicting they would hold the senate. i think we have had a handout going around with some of those quotes for everybody. after tuesday, though, democrats are changing their tune. now they're telling you that the wave was so big that even the best ground game couldn't overcome it. that's not analysis, that's really just a lame excuse. all of you know it, the reason they're playing up the wave is that they don't want to admit that republicans actually beat them at their own game.
2:18 am
so number two, if we had not seen -- if we had not been laser focused on turning out low propensity voters in states like iowa and colorado, we would have not been victorious. the ground game mattered. our unprecedented investment in data mattered. i'll admit that the democrats' ground game was bigger and more expensive. ours was smarter, targeted, more efficient and ultimately more effective. we made important gains across demographic groups because we believe that voter engagement works. let's talk about hispanic outreach. look at georgia. david perdue won 42% of the hispanic vote, nathan beal had 47%. the african-american voters, look at john casic in ohio, 26%
2:19 am
of the black vote, asian americans, exit polls show that republicans won 49% of the asian vote. in 2012, it was 26%. and when it comes to female voters, a few things, first see how cory gardner handed the attacks from mark udall. greg abbott in texas beat wendy davis among women voters as well. finally people asked me what the takeaway of the election is. i think it's that the republicans were given an opportunity to lead at every level, local, state, and federal. in the senate, we had a decisive win obviously across the board and it was clear that it was a defeat for harry reid's dysfunctional leadership and the barack obama agenda. harry reid's refusal to allow votes in the senate in order to protect incumbents backfired and actually it insured their defeat. in the senate it was a night of important firsts for the republican party.
2:20 am
johnny ernst because the first female combat veteran in the senate and the first woman in congress from iowa. tom cotton will be the youngest member of the senate. shelly moore capital is the first woman elected to the senate from west virginia. tim scott becomes the first african-american elected to both the house and the senate. in the house, we have a majority bigger than most of us have seen in our lifetimes. we're proud to see mea love in utah, will herd in texas 23 and elyse stepanik in new york who will become the youngest woman ever elected to congress. the governors' races across america affirmed the leadership of conservative republicans across the country and in the bluest of blue states they rejected the democrats.
2:21 am
in maryland, in massachusetts, and in illinois, even the president's home state where he campaigned vigorously elected a republican. i think that kind of tells you how big this victory was. it wasn't just a rejection of barack obama and everyone connected to barack obama. it was also the acceptance of conservative republican leadership across the board in these states. republicans now control more state legislative chambers, 69 out of 99 and hold on to more legislative seats than at any point in the history of our nation. not only is that important for putting in place the right policies of the state level, it also means that we're going to have a much deeper bench for future congressional and senate races. ultimately this was all a direct rejection of the obama agenda, but as you all know, president obama said very clearly and he went out of his way and i think
2:22 am
it was also perturbed by the strategy adopted by democrats across the board when he declared continuously that his policies were on the ballot and the voters were in response very clear as well that they want nothing to do with the policies of barack obama and when hillary clinton and bill clinton tried to come in for the last 60 days to be the face of the democratic party, that didn't do anything to move the dial either. these were the president's candidates and they were also the clinton's candidates and they lost. remember the clintons were campaigning hard. they couldn't save their candidates even in blue states. i think in arkansas, tom cotton was declared the winner at about 8:01 by the "associated press." after wednesday's press conference, i'm not sure that the president got the message. he was dismissive, he was flip and this isn't the first time the president has told us he
2:23 am
would be bipartisan, so it's hard to take him at his word when he hasn't followed through before. sure, he said he needs to let john boehner win at a round of golf, but that's not going to be good enough. he is missing the point. he needs to listen to the american people more and work with speaker boehner and senator mcconnell so he can find ways to support republican ideas which are the ideas americans chose in this election. in closing, we won in red states, we won in blue states and we won in purple states and we are going to build on our successes of 2014 so that we can have a successful 2016. there is still going to be an uphill battle. i think we have to be about perfect, but i think we can get there and we're more prepared today than we have been before as a republican party. >> i'm going to do one or two and go to david jackson, todd, kyle, jill, david and craig,
2:24 am
nick, sam, chuck, john and zeke to start. that should keep us going. you have been very enthusiastic in your description of the election. a number of your fellow republicans are urging a less triumphant view, i wouldn't label this a mandate. haley barbor should not take this election as some rousing endorsement. charles krauthammer, you had a great night, but you didn't win it, the democrats lost it. are you still feeling the voters' embrace, how sweeping a mandate do you think you actually got from the results on tuesday? >> well, i think when the president doubled down and claimed that his policies were on the ballot and actually went on talk radio in georgia and
2:25 am
said if you elect michelle nunn, you actually are going to be advancing my agenda and the policies that i have put forth, i mean he about sunk michelle nunn with those comments. if you think about it, michelle nunn was back on a trajectory that brought georgia close to even in the polling. we were seeing it, too. the president came in, articulated his message, wanted the voters of georgia to know that the direction that he was bringing this country could be advanced by electing michelle nunn and that race became a race that everyone was assuming was going to be a runoff to an outright win and it wasn't even close. >> what about the election being the embrace of the values of conservative government? >> it was. >> this morning you said acceptance. you think it was more than just a judgment of him, embrace of you? >> look at wisconsin.
2:26 am
look at that state. you have a state that accepted, maybe perhaps embrace might be a little over the top, but clearly if you look at scott walker, larry hogan, charlie baker, what is that? is that an accident? the democrats are lousy everywhere. everywhere on the ground they were no good, they didn't do good in maryland. they are lousy in massachusetts. they didn't have their act together? come on, the fact is everything that was attached to barack obama lost and about every tough governor's race in america where republican principles, conservative principles on the ballot, republicans won. i would call that a pretty sweeping victory. whether it's a mandate or not, that's a different topic. i happen to think that it's
2:27 am
clearly a mandate or it's clearly a message that the american people don't want to follow down the pathway of barack obama and his policies. that's clear. so that's number one. number two, when republican principles are put on the table, republicans won. and by the way, democrats didn't, whoever said that the democrats just lost, look, they put together one of the best ground games that they have put together in a midterm. i know because we were fighting it for the last eight months. if anyone is going to tell you in any interview that the reason the democrats lost is because their ground game stunk, they don't know what they're talking about. the fact is we were just a whole lot better than we have ever been. like i said before, i just want to make one other thing clear. i'm not, i also haven't lost my mind to think that we don't have a long way to go. like i have said a few times this past week, if you heard me, and i mean this, it's sort of
2:28 am
like when my wife has asked me how i'm doing on a project around the house and i tell her, well, i'm about 80% done and i have 80% to go, i mean that's kind of where i see us at in the party. >> let me ask you one other, that is that there seems to be sort of a split, one of the challenges for the party seems to be a split over tactics, the "post" and others have written of efforts by speaker boehner and soon to be majority leader mcconnell to get a series of votes, not obstructionist, but to get things done. senator cruz told the "post" that the first order in the new congress should be hearings on president obama looking at the abuse of power, the executive abuse, the regulatory abuse, the lawlessness that sadly has pervaded this administration. how would you assess the party challenge in keeping a sense of unity going forward in terms of objective?
2:29 am
>> well, i mean i think with 54 seats in the senate and i don't know where we're going to get in the house, maybe 247, 8, 9, i'm not sure where it's going to go, but i think unity is pretty achievable with those kinds of numbers. i don't think it's a problem and everyone has a different opinion on what direction the agenda in the senate and the house should go, but ultimately we are going to have two leaders that get along very well. i think if you look back historically, i don't know if you're going to find two leaders that are more cohesive and on the same page than speaker boehner and mitch mcconnell. and what ted cruz said i think is appropriate. the american people in part, not the whole campaign, but the american people i think are sick and tired of the abuse as well. they want answers on the i.r.s. they want answers on benghazi
2:30 am
and i think that they deserve to get those answers. so, yeah, i think that there should be a continuation of trying to get answers to the american people and democracy has to be transparent. i don't think it has been over the last few years. >> david. >> the republican sweep in '94 didn't bring a republican president. and you've still got a party that goes all the way from ted cruz to jeb bush. given those divisions, how to republicans get together and find a presidential candidate who can capture the center in two years? >> the democrats also go to warren to senator mansion in west virginia, right? you never know. you get the every two years' chatter whether he's going to become a republican or not. we don't have a monopoly on diversity within our party. i think it's a good thing, actually.
2:31 am
i think, if you look back at our nomination process, we tend to nominate candidates but so -- i guess historically, i don't see any evidence of our party not coalescing rather quickly around a nominee. now, i do believe and people argue with me about it, and that's okay. it's my opinion. i do believe that having a month of proportionality in 2012 created an artificially close election. i think that by reorganizing our nomination process and taking it from a six-month slice-and-dice festival down to about 60 days is smart. and i think that's what you're going to see. we're not going to have a 23-debate circus. we're going to have control. >> how many debates?
2:32 am
and will all go for that? >> i think they're going to go for it. i think the penalties are pretty debilitating that are in place. but we're going to have enough debates where we take care of as many partners and television stations and cable stations as possible. and we're going to contain the process so we don't end up with rogue debates that provide the temptation to candidates to break our rules. >> you mentioned democrats. is there any doubt in your mind you're going to be running against hillary clinton? >> i sure as heck hope we're running against hillary clinton. i think what you just saw on tuesday night is about as flat of a performance that you could have ever seen from the democrat party's brightest star. i mean, if you look at the races across the board that she was
2:33 am
playing in, she didn't fare very well. and if your job was to unify the party and to raise a ton of money and to get a ton of volunteers on the ground, i i promise you, you'd want no other opponent than hillary clinton to run against. >> jeff? >> in the wake of 2012, the republican national committee produced a 97-page report. you don't like to call it an autopsy. you called it an opportunity project. do you believe that -- in one of the passages, it said, we must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. do you believe that still needs to be an imperative of the party going forward to 2016? and on the report as a whole, what still needs to be accomplished from that report or should it just be shelved? >> we actually -- if you look at the report -- so let me back up. the report was written after an
2:34 am
appointed group of people interviewed and talked to people all over the country, activists, leaders, you know, thousands of people. and it was written for the republican national committee at my request. that report was not written by me or somebody in our, you know, building. it's a report for the entire republican party to review and i think that by and large it was a great report and we've been trying to, at least as far as the republican national committee is concerned, follow the recommendations, especially when it comes to the mechanics, the ground game, the work that a national party needs to do in order to be a competent partner, which i don't think in many cases the national party has been over many years. and i think we're getting there. as to the immigration issue, i think it's pretty clear, you know, comprehensive immigration
2:35 am
reform has sort of become loaded language, because it means something different to everybody that you ask. rand paul went to the hispanic chamber on march 19 of 2013 and said we need comprehensive immigration reform. as you know, lindsey graham said the same thing. my guess is rand paul's version of what comprehensive immigration reform is might be a little different from lindsey graham. so i think ultimately, immigration reform is a subject that most people in our party agree we need to tackle. however, what we've seen happen over the last several months is that the president has been using people as political pawns and lying to people when it comes to immigration reform.
2:36 am
he promised immigration reform when he ran for office in 2007. he used it as a basis to do well among many voters. ultimately, when he had a majority in the house and a supermajority in the senate, he didn't get anything done. now he says if only it wasn't for these darn republicans, we would have been able to do it. but he didn't deliver. he threatened executive amnesty, which is in our mind, a nuclear threat, to reject the basis of the separation of powers doctrine, reject article 1 and 2, as far as what lies within the power of the president. then he got pushed back on executive amnesty. and then he came back and said, well, you know what? and obviously his poll numbers were in the tank over the summer. he said, boy, i better not do this to my candidates that are
2:37 am
running in all these states that we're worried about getting killed in, so i'm going to pull back. then the activists that he's trying to please get upset. then he says, well, now i'm gonna threaten these guys and do it after i get elected. >> going forward, do you believe that the republican party needs to follow up on what was mentioned in the report to have comprehensive immigration reform for the party to be successful? >> and so what i -- what i think he's done is unified the country and the electorate around one big principle, and that's that we need to secure the border. he has created a situation that i think may have not existed before that episode that has galvanized the country in a place where i don't believe most people are interested in comprehensive immigration reform unless they're sure that the border is secure. i think it was because of the
2:38 am
president's haphazard political game that's created an environment that will not allow the legislature to move forward unless people can be convinced that that border is secure. and that's where we've come. and i think it makes sense that there was a lot of talk about immigration reform and now -- which i think rightfully so, we're talking about border security first, before we get to anything else. >> todd gilman? >> thank you. so you mentioned wendy davis in texas. and the democrats made a big to-do about battleground texas. this was really going to be a huge push. abbott won by an enormous average. is texas more republican now than it was before this election cycle? is the day further away that democrats threaten to own the
2:39 am
white house forever because they take over texas? >> i think what's happening is the texas gop, and i would say the republican national committee, took the threat of battleground texas pretty seriously. if you look at fec reports, what you're going to see is that the rnc has been investing in texas for about a year and a half on the ground with hispanic engagement operations, regional offices, and i would say that the texas gop itself is one of the best parties in hispanic engagement that there is in this country, along with great candidates like greg abbott. so i do believe that battleground texas did a lot of work down there in registering hispanic voters and, again, i just think that they woke up the
2:40 am
party in that if we don't start paying attention to recruiting volunteers and engaging hispanic voters in texas, that it's possible the party could have a problem in the years to come. but what i will tell you is that we don't plan on slowing down in our engagement in texas. i already know what our budget is going to be for next year in spending on the ground in texas. and it's going to be because we know that we have to hold and get better in texas because while i don't think it's going to be a problem in 2016, if we were to just forget about texas and think everything is going to be great there, 2020, 2024, i don't want to see us, you know, either becoming a close state or a state that ends up becoming purple. >> are you running for another term as rnc chair?
2:41 am
have you made up your mind on that? >> i'll probably decide the first week of december. but i'm -- i'm leaning to do it again. >> and just a -- >> but i have to talk to -- that being said now, my wife is going to see this. i mean, i've got to talk to -- i haven't really had that serious conversation at home. [laughter] which is -- yeah. i guess it's going to happen tonight. [laughter] oh, i got a text. you know, the thing for me isn't that i wouldn't want to do it again. we have put ourselves in a four-year plan. i think we've got a long way to go to be ready for 2016. so granted we're excited and proud of where we've come. i think we've got to be about perfect, as a national party, to win a national cultural vote in this country.
2:42 am
i think the democrats can be good and win. we've got to be great. in order to do that, you have to have a national party that's obsessed over all the boring stuff like the mechanics and the ground game. nobody ever wants to talk about these kinds of things. but i'm convinced that this is how we're going to win in 2016. i think candidates are really important. but i think the mechanics are more important. the only hesitation i ever have is that i think it's important to get back to normal life, with a nine-year-old and a four-year-old, have a backyard, and just simpler operation than what it is being chairman of the rnc. >> do your kids like it here? >> they do. they like it. but, you know, it's pretty obvious that when we go back and they grab the bike and the garage door, they're out around the neighborhood, and i don't know.
2:43 am
it's just better, a better life in wisconsin, i would say. >> jill? >> you framed this as a rejection of the president's policies and that's certainly one way of looking at it. i'm just curious about how you explain some of the ballot initiatives where some of the policies he's identified with, like raising the minimum wage and gun control, did very well. does that send any -- what do you take from that in terms of whether republicans should start thinking along lines like that? >> well, i mean, i think -- yeah. i think these are the issues that our legislators have to look at and they have to decide how they want to governor in each of these different states with different agendas. some states present unique differences than one national agenda. and as far as minimum wage and marijuana is concerned, i mean, i personally don't believe that
2:44 am
artificially raising is minimum wage is going to put more money in people's pockets, because i think eventually inflation goes up and products cost more. i think it's sort of a false hope. but as far as marijuana is concerned, i mean, i'm opposed to that. i just don't think that we need to be promoting things like that with kids and with high school kids and i just -- i'm not if favor of it. >> for republicans -- >> i think the legislators have to consider everything. but as chairman of the party, i'm the mechanic. i'm the one that's got to understand and get our act together when it comes to our data operation. i'm not the guy that sits down with scott walker and says, you know, you really need to look at this issue regarding minimum wage or marijuana. this is what legislators,
2:45 am
governors have to do in order to determine how they can best govern their individual states. if you talk to chris christie, he's going to govern in a different way in his state than, you know, governor haslam is going to govern in tennessee. i think everything is different. that's the great thing about the democracy and the united states. >> notwithstanding the data operation, in 2016, you're going to have a broader mass, higher turnout. you won't necessarily be able to run against somebody with a 40% approval rating. you talk about the -- and you've talked before about how your data operation, it never ends. you keep refining it and trying to get it better. have you had a chance yet to
2:46 am
figure out, with the success that you had tuesday, where it needs to go from here so that when you get to 2016, you can compete theoretically against the democratic operation that might be as good as what the president fielded in 2012? >> you know, not completely yet. it's only been a few days. but i have an idea. my guess is that we're going to have to be three times bigger than we were in 2014. i think it's going to take a massive amount of money and a huge paid program in the battleground states, starting immediately. i will tell you, we're not pulling staff out of any presidential battleground state. it's hard to do, if you know how hard, you know, our money cycle works. to not strip down to bare bones and then build back up.
2:47 am
i think that we need to have a full-blown field operation in place by march, in florida, ohio and virginia. and that's an extremely expensive thing to do when people are tired and tapped out. but i think the nice thing about what happened on tuesday is that our investors at the rnc are excited that the mechanics worked and they can see that a good competent program on the ground is something that they're willing to invest in again immediately in 2015. >> okay. just one thing on the 2016 map. and you alluded to this before. it appears, at least right now, to be an easier map for democrats, where the swing states, they've got in the bank a lot more electoral votes than you guys do. you guys need certain states like ohio and florida or virginia or some combination of purple as opposed to the solid
2:48 am
reds, if you look at the count. is there anything that changes that? or do you really -- is it that narrow of a path for you guys? >> well, i mean, if you think about where we were as a national party a few years ago, not just being $26 million in debt and where we were at with 80 employees. barack obama at the same time had 800 employees. we didn't have a whole lot initially to offer. and mitt romney lost by a quarter million votes. so i mean, it wasn't like -- you know, granted the electoral college was pretty lopsided. but vote totals, you're talking about 100,000 or so in florida, virginia, ohio. obviously we needed new hampshire. but we're talking about working like dogs here to grow the electorate and turn the dial just a few little notches in
2:49 am
order to win. i think if we work really hard and we got a candidate on the ballot that people actually want to sit down and have a beer with, i think we can win. i will tell you this. if we didn't win purple states on tuesday, it would have been very difficult for me to sit here and make a case for you that if we couldn't win a purple state in a good environment with good candidates, it would have been very difficult to tell you that we were going to be able to win with 75%, 80% turnout. so i get the point. and my answer to mr. cheney's question probably would have been a lot different if we didn't win in colorado and north carolina. so i think the challenge is that our data and our targeting has to continue to improve and i think it will. and i think that our early vote program has to decisively beat
2:50 am
the democrats. and if you saw what we were doing, we were targeting low-propensity voters. so we were finding the consumer characteristics of people, what they buy and don't buy, how many kids they have, what magazines they subscribe to, finding out and then taking the information that looked like voters that would be our voters, and then matching it up to the voter rolls of people who don't always vote. so finding your high probability republicans but low-propensity voters, targeting them early. and we're just going to have to do an even better job of that in order to win in places like colorado, iowa and north carolina in order to win in 2016. i'm getting where you're at but that's where i think we need to go. >> we're going to go to your hometown paper. >> ah! >> milwaukee sentinel journal. >> so you have states where the
2:51 am
party has been kind of dominated at the presidential level but still winning midterms. other states where you've been dominating in midterms and yet still losing presidentials. does what happened in 2014 change the size of the challenge, the presidential challenge for you? it sounds like you're saying you still have to be perfect to win a presidential campaign. why is it that you have to be perfect? what is the nature of that challenge? and leaving mechanics aside, when you're just talking about sort of demographics and people's preferences. >> for one thing, i don't think we've been showing up enough in hispanic, asian and black communities over the last several years, because if you look at the map, you know, who represents milwaukee, craig? right?
2:52 am
a democrat congressman, a democrat state assembly person. who is at the church festival on sunday morning in the hispanic community? the democrats. so while you can win everywhere in a midterm, when you have 2.4 or 2.5 million people vote in the midterm, right, in wisconsin, in the recall, four months later, you have 3.1 million people vote and you feel great about the performance in the midterm. but then if you're not showing up and working hard in those communities on a year-round basis, it comes back in the presidential, and you ultimately have a big problem. so the things that we fundamentally changed at the rnc is putting paid staff in black, hispanic, asian communities on a permanent basis in order to get, number 1, get to know voters,
2:53 am
engage voters, tell people about what it is that we believe in as a republican party, open up college republican chapters at campuses across the country. these are i think important steps in us moving forward as a national party. i think you're going to see, when you get the actual numbers from the secretary of state's office in places like colorado and georgia, you're going to see that we've made a lot of gains and improvements, because number 1, we're showing up and making our case and trying to be better and do better in those communities. >> we've got about 20 minutes to go. your answers have been great. i'm not asking for them to be shorter. i just want to let my colleagues know we've got ten people on deck. we're obviously not going to get to all of them. we'll do the best we can. >> obviously it's been a good week. but what's still your worry as you look ahead to 2016? what do you think is still the biggest hurdle that you have to climb? >> being able to continue what
2:54 am
we're doing and raising the funds necessary to, in scale, do what we did in the midterm in the presidential, because i know it's going to take a massive lift on the ground without the white house helping us raise money to keep doing what we're doing and compete and be prepared when we're going to have a nominee that isn't going to be able to -- no nominee is going to have $100 million for a data platform. and no nominee is going to be having a year-round field operation. they're going to be raising money for themselves and making sure they win a primary. and it's going to take the republican national committee to fill that void. and it's going to be extremely expensive. >> just -- i know we have short time.
2:55 am
just a quick clarification. you mentioned the nuclear threat. i'm curious what one does in a nuclear fashion. then secondly, yesterday, rob of the rnc said he was thankful for democrats sidelining the president during election cycle. i'm curious if you share that viewpoint. and if you wanted to run an autopsy on what the democratic -- [inaudible] >> i don't think anyone is in a position to know right now, without extensive field work, polling, postelection, real scientific work and interviews. but anecdotally, i've heard from democrats that have stopped me and told me that they were offended that the democrats sidelined the president during
2:56 am
the election. i'm not the person to know. but i would just say this. i have not heard anything that disputes that narrative among people that i've talked to and have heard from anecdotally. that's the best i can do for you. >> how do you feel he was sidelined? >> i don't think so, only because the president made it so clear that he was on the ballot or at least his policies were on the ballot that it really didn't seem to matter. i would suppose that if the president was coming into these states that were in play more, i think the democrats probably would have done worse. there may have been a couple of exceptions, maybe in north carolina.
2:57 am
but it's hard to tell. i just don't know. sometimes you just don't know. >> on the nuclear threat, i mean, once he goes forward with his executive -- >> i think that the republicans have to convene about whatever possible options we have to stop it. i mean, whether it be court, whether it be legislation. and i think those options have to be explored. the problem we have is that we really can't believe anything the president says on immigration. so we get asked these hypotheticals. and i know you guys are doing a good job of it. but when you're sitting here like me or someone else and you're hearing for the 100th time that the president is going to sign an executive amnesty bill, i mean, i guess we just don't buy it. i just think he's said so many different things about this that it's hard to know what to believe and therefore i think it
2:58 am
goes in one ear and out the other at this point, when he makes these threats. but if the president does something like that, what essentially he's telling the american people is he doesn't give a darn about republicans and democrats working together, you know. he'd rather just stick it to the republicans as much as he can and the heck with getting along and working together in washington. so all the talk about how -- and i agree that people are sick and tired of washington and dysfunction. the president is just throwing a barrel of kerosene on a fire if he signs an executive amnesty order. >> chuck of the st. louis dispatch. >> thank you. as you know, the senate map in 2016 is not as nearly as favorable to you. you've got a number of senators in states that are either purple or blue, some of which won narrowly last time out.
2:59 am
i'm wondering, for instance, in the case of somebody like senator kirk in illinois, who favors parts of the health care law, if the headlines early in the next congress are confrontation and partisan votes on repeal and potential vetoes and overrides and that sort of thing, how much does that endanger him in a blue state, and are you concerned about it? how fragile is your senate majority? >> well, i think it's a state-by-state analysis. when you look at my state of individual.t's very john son is going to be up for in 2016, kirk.
3:00 am
we have a plan, achievable a majority of americans agree with that is accomplished and that we repeat and repeat to the american people those achievable goals so that,accomplished as you say, people can see that invested in and voted i think they'll be doing
3:01 am
a whole lot of talking over the such anth to organize effort. >> how fraj i is that majority right now?e >> it's hard to say now. us 20% to people gave win the majority of the senate. and so i don't know. i just think it's hard to tell. think that things change quickly in politics and knowing what's going to happen impossible. is just >> thank you. mr. chairman, you've touched on polls a lot this morning and up in questions. several people have said that ways in this election were worse --en
3:02 am
polling industry should be fumigated after it's investigated. do you have any thoughts on why polls were off and do you believe they were skewed toward the democrats? as a whole. not if you take the polling and the averages, whether it be a public polling or, the public polling we see averages and every single poll in our war room that comes out. looked at public polls and i was talking to people about what i thought was going to happen in colorado or arkansas. had an idea because i would review every single poll that, well, an idea tom cotton has been ahead in nine out of 10 polls that i've in arkansas between 4 and 6%, now he ended up winning by a
3:03 am
than that. but generally the public polling to exactly what ended up tuesday. on we were far more confident than thet of the media was over weekend, and wondering where the republican wave was. through our data operation and our modeling that were going to have a huge night on tuesday. you may have seen a couple from someritten reporters that had a little bit of a review of with a we were doing beforehand, showing people here's what we think is going to happen in this state. here's where we think we're going to be. we were almost exact. and we'rearolina, going to have better information than with a you get from the exit polling and things like that, but we had three carolina.north we had a best case scenario determineodel to
3:04 am
where unknown voters were going to go, and you take that universe and you apply the data and the census and voter data to that universe and models.p various we had a mid case scenario and a worst case scenario. ended up in about between mid case and worse case in north carolina. but we knew that in order to get case scenario, which would have been a tiny loss, by tom tillis, we would to get crushed in that vote by like 75 to 25% to get to worse case scenario. so look at the marquette poll, i wisconsin. that in it was about dead on accurate, wasn't it? right. so i guess i have a view that as
3:05 am
whole i think all of it collectively is helpful in predicting the outcomes. virginia, the case of it's hard to tell what happened there. these --ure if some of what science they're applying to who is doingr them, but i'm not sure where the public polling was there. but we were not shocked that it was close. >> followup question. do you think that mr. gillespie, ask predecessors are should for a recount? >> i don't know, it's up to him. where the up ins are at right now. i talked to ed yesterday and i'm him this talk to morning. i don't know what the latest is there, but we're prepared with to help himcan do and he knows that. so he'll probably make a today.n >> you said before that the
3:06 am
as close toarty is perfect as possible to stand a hillary clinton in 2016. you see also that candidate a very important important
3:07 am
factor. how did you keep the republican party perfect when you're going to have a very owe when you're guarantee to have a divisive primary. i think what you'll see is that fundingle who have been the r. n. c. over the last few years, they're going to double on our program because they know that investing in mechanics tothe way that we are going be able to win in 2016. so that's the first piece. the second piece is that i under that while i can't always everybody's mouth, i can have an influence over how long other.t each and that's why we are providing and working on a reasonable number of debates that allow case.ates to make their
3:08 am
but are not so many that it amount of unnecessary fighting and bickering and activity.ve and the primary process is going to start somewhere right after february 1. i don't see much of a chance of having an avalanche up front based on the penalties that states would suffer from competing outside of the window. take think that the winner out contest on march 15 is going massive day in the country. so you're going to have a big march 1, which will be proportional. and i think you're going to have march 15 that all.be a winner take february 1,ow and 2016, that's a long time, for
3:09 am
10, 12, 15 declared candidates bickering back and forth. thatu intend to police process at all? >> as you know, first amendment, doht, people can say and pretty much what they want. at i think that there is feeling, you might think this is i thinkhe sky, but there is a very strong feeling roots and many donors that i'm going to put up with republicans slicing apart.her and that i think there's going high level of disdain theirndidates who spend time trying to destroy other republicans. there is a high level of interest among various party to employ reagan's 11th commandment, and i see peoplee going to
3:10 am
very vocal about that moving aboutd and less concerned getting involved in the middle of candidates. concerned about refrainingtation and from being vocal with candidates that go out of their way to simply just kill each other. or threegot two left.s question. >> you said the ideal candidate for 2016 would be somebody that people would want to have a beer with. >> an old wisconsin phrase. >> could you elaborate on what the best qualities would be for an ideal republican candidate? to mention anyre names, that would be good too. >> i'll probably refrain from
3:11 am
that. but i would say i think mid term judgments on the past, as far as performance. and i think presidential are about the future. i think that, i think hope for tomorrow and who is going to provide a better future for our is the candidate that wins. it's not necessarily the that can better articulate how we're going to combat fair trade with china acor what we'ring about to do fracking.n coal and it's about who is going to provide a better country for our kids, because pee want to be hopeful. people want tomorrow to be better than today. so people want to believe that someone is going to provide a
3:12 am
them and theiror kids. future, andope, the who can best articulate those themes is the type of candidate that will be able to win the white house in 2016. thank you and sean for helping us set this up. thanks for coming. everybody,u, appreciate it.
3:13 am
3:14 am
>> in the virginia u.s. senate race, republican ed tbil espy conceded to democratic incumbent mark warner. mr. gillespie says he will not recount, even though state law inteeltses -- entitles him to one. this is about 15 minutes.
3:15 am
>> thank you. thank you all. thank you all so much. thank you all. a great crowd on such short see so manyreat to friends and volunteers and supporters. you're nice to make time on a weekday. kathy and i are happy to be with you here today and we just wanted to give you a little update on where things stand. and it stands this way. know, the canvassing is completed. and the official tally is now a votes.more than 16,700 larger than it was on election night. theously it did not move in direction that we had hoped it
3:16 am
would. and so i've called mark warner this morning to congratulate him himis re-election, to thank for his public service to our himonwealth, and to wish and his family well. it was a nice conversation, and hope that he does well, obviously, in his continued commonwealth of virginia and for the country. this is obviously a hard fought race. and i'm proud of the campaign we and i loved every minute of it. [applause] maybe not this one so much. we ran an issue driven policy-focused campaign with proposals to create
3:17 am
jobs, raise take-home pay, lift poverty, hold down health care costs and reduce energy prices. race 29 points down. and we were outspent by more than two to one. the end a shift of 9,000 votes could have changed the of this election. and if i believed there were any conceivable way that we could fine a viable path to win i'd fight asount, hard now as i have for the past campaign, forhis our policies and our principles. but i ran because i love our and our commonwealth. and it would be wrong to put my fellow virginia wraps through a recount when in my head and in change in know that a outcome is not possible. we've heard from supporters and concerns about some irregular already tees, concerns about their ballots, and we those to the republican party of virginia to
3:18 am
follow up to ensure that, one, vote isgitimate counted, and two, that we suchct against any irregularities in the future. but even factoring in any of countedded andng after careful analysis of past elections in the commonwealth which have been even closer than ours, and in consultation with our legal team i've con included the numbers just aren't there, and it's time to accept the decision of my fellow virginians. after 11 months and 56,000 miles traveled, kathy and i are blessed to call so many of them our new friends. could not have come this close without the tireless efforts and the countless hours mighty, mighty g force. [cheers and applause] kathy and i love you all, and e
3:19 am
with surprised a lot of experts tuesday night. surprised at't all. you had faith all along and kept hard even in the face of beg told it was hopeless. and i want to thank all of our volunteers who were there from the beginning. but i'm just as grateful for all volunteers who supported others in our nominating process and came on board after our convention. many of them were tea party voters who were initially skeptical of my candidacy. oneafter getting to know another better it was clear that their concerns are my concerns theirs.oncerns are these patriotic americans are often wrongfully marginalized if demonized in the media, and it's wrong. fosterour campaign helps an even greater working traditional between
3:20 am
liberty movement and tea party andblicans going forward that our party continues to rally behind our nominees no matter what door they have come into the process through. let me say too we could not have gotten this close in this election if we didn't take our positive message to voters who traditionally supported republicans, campaigning in every corner of the commonwealth segment of the electorate. our campaign information was translated into seven languages. we went places that republicans for too long have written off and democrats for have taken for granted. festivals,ethnic black quhuches, islamic centers, banksss shelters, food and the recovery community. and after getting to know one another better, it was clear that their concerns are my concerns, and my concerns are their concerns. efforts paid off, and as a party we need to carry them forward. i'm going to begin
3:21 am
rolling credits. so be patient with me here because we have a lot of people to thank in this process. we ranout the campaign as a team with our congressional candidates and i am so happy to long-time friend barbara come tok for win montgomery the 10th district.nal [applause] and in the 7th district, a new friend that i made in the course this campaign, dave brat who job of lettingte the people in the 7th. effective leaders for the people that elected them leaders for our commonwealth. i want to congratulate another friend, suzanne mike edmond for running such impressive
3:22 am
campaigns as well. [applause] virginia has one of the finest congressional delegations in the united states congress and it to runoy, a pure joy with rob whitman, scott rachel, iter hurt, bobob goodlatch and morgan griffith, they are all strong voices for must the united states congress. cantor andressman retiring congressman wolf were supportive as well and i want to thank them not only for the support of our campaign but for their service to our country. general assembly members campaigned with us as well and i s speaker and all our delegates and senators for way. help along the with so many friend and suzanne werek and tireless. we decided early on not to have a campaign chairman for this mark pretty much served as our exairn chairman. a lot of campaigns have one. to have a title, but
3:23 am
not do a lot of work. is the exact opposite. he did not need or want a title tirelessly on our behalf and behave us great advice. my friend,o call him our party is stronger because of his principled leadership. virginians are fortunate to have a legislator of his senate.y in the state [applause] happy fori are so them. greatnance team did a job. i think pat mullens and the party ofthe republican virginia who were shoulder to shoulder with us throughout this and pat will be missed as he down as chairman of the
3:24 am
republican party of virginia. appreciate his service to our party. thank the r. n. victory step.r but the tip of the spear was the ad for senate campaign. of that tip was our campaign manager, chris levitt, smart,tireless, committed, and unrelenting. chris, thank you. [applause] was the back team bone of our highly effective audrey jackson. they all were fantastic. we did a lot of outreach. coalitions team was wonderful, helped us make so many new friend and go places we before as a party and i want to thank our coalitionings director.
3:25 am
we were a policy driven and i appreciate the director of the policy for coming up with innovative agenda. and a positive the ed gillespie agenda for growth, which we resonated across the commonwealth. lot of money for a campaign that nobody thought had finance team,ur they did a fantastic job. appreciate the hard work of our communications team including my friend tucker martin. communications director paul logan. garrett hawkins and miriam roth. media director eric well son who helped us build a community of support. last but not least, i have to
3:26 am
man, my right has been kyle mccole began, we travel 56,000 miles together, didn't kill one another. we just went wherever the campaign september us and by the all, sometimes we the other of campaign headquarters or our own. kyle, thank you very much. [applause] i thank my family. kathy was my most effective the campaign trail. we are blessed by a wonderful and i am a very lucky man. [applause]
3:27 am
she's with ed, as can you see, and i'm with her. john, care re: and molly were supportive, throughout this campaign, knowing that it would family.away from the losing is never easy, but it's they will bethat there for me and i will have more time for them. bewould have been miss to called senator, but the best thing i have ever been called is dad. [applause] and i are fact, kathy leaving from here for parents weekend at our daughter's college. so let me conclude by saying thank you all. are on ourmom and i way. god bless you, god bless the andonwealth of virginia, god bless the united states of
3:28 am
america. thank you. [cheers and applause] theext a discussion about impact of the mid term elections on states and local governments. to thee u.s. ambassador united nations talks about the u.s. role in the u. n.'s peacekeeping efforts. after this president obama remarks at friday's cabinet luncheon with his leaders.onal on the next "washington sunlight the foundation's bill allison looks at the impact of campaign out outcome of the mid terms. will discuss how some ballot measures to legalize marijuana fared at the polls. calls andtake your you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.
3:29 am
>> the c-span cities tour takes history tv american on the road, traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their life.y and literary next weekend we partnered with charter communications for a visit to madison, wisconsin. >> it is a glorious service, country.ice for the the call comes to every citizen, unending struggle to make and keep government representative. >> he is probably the most political figure in wisconsin history, and one of the most important in the the 20th century in the united states. reforming governor, he defined what progressivism is, one of the first to use
3:30 am
the term progressive to self identify. a united states senator who was recognized by his peers the 1950's as one of the five greatest senators in american history. of world waronent i, stood his ground, advocating speech. above all, bob lafollet was people m. the era after the civil war, america from a nationlly of small farmers and small producers and small manufacturers, and by the late rng 1890's, we had had concentrations of wealth, we had growing inequality, and we had concern about the influence of money in government. so we spent the later part of speeches all over wisconsin. if you wanted a speaker for your lafolletour group, bob
3:31 am
would give a speech. he wentto county fairs, to every kind of event you could imagine and built a reputation for himself. for900, he was ready to run governor, advocating on behalf of the people. issues.ad two one, the direct primary, no more andcting candidates convention. interests.he specifically the railroads. >> next a discussion on the my term election's outcome and tim localn states and communities. a panel of reporters examines the 36 governors races and the makeup of state legislatures around the country. they also talked about some of the major state and local ballot
3:32 am
initiatives, including marijuana legalization, gun control, foods, and modified legal protection for the unborn. this event was hosted by governing magazine. it's about an hour and 10 minutes. >> good morning and welcome to governing magazine's briefing on state and of the 2014 local elections. i'm zach patton, executive governing. there has been plenty to discuss this week about the congressional mid materials with ofublicans taking control the senate and gaining their largest majority in the house two. world war but this morning we want to focus, as we always do, on going on at the state and local level. the governors races, state elections, ballot
3:33 am
initiatives as well as local measures that will have an nextt across the country year and in years to come. to help us make sense of all that we've got a pretty panel this morning of governing staffers and contributing writers. starting to my left with governing political staff writer alan greenblatt. lou jacobson, the for, a frequent contributor to governing and governing.com. be joined by the senior editor for governing.com specific ballot initiatives at the state level. but right now i'd like to start races, andvernors lou, you've been tracking these elections and predicting race for more than a year, as you have done in several previous election cycles. wave that we saw at the congressional legal certainly extended to governors races this year. how did tuesday's results compare with what you were see?ting to
3:34 am
>> there was always a chance it was going to be a g.o.p. wave, easily could have been an whichncumbent wave, in both lost. if i had to choose one, it probably would have been the anti-incumbent wave. contests which were tossups prior to the election. and if i had to be pressed down i would haveink said that a couple democrats, couple g.o.p. governors would lose. was not at all like that. of those 12 contests, 10 went to the g.o.p. one went to the democrats and one is still up in the air but going to be an independent in alaska who is in now. place right so it clearly was a g.o.p. wave. interesting because part of the reason why i would have predicted before the it would be more
3:35 am
of an anti-incumbent wave is that that's typically what it's been. in 2002 a mid material election cycle, as this one was, there elect nights and on 20 of those 36 flipped parties. largely open seats, a few incumbents lost. but, so to get to 20 you have to ofe a significant number both parties losing seats in the races.rs and then in 2010, it a years too were a lotre of open seats, it was eight years after the first one. that year it was 18 out of the flipped parties on election night. again, both folks in both parties lost. so using that sort of model i felt that we'd see some
3:36 am
in both parties lose. one g.o.p. governor lose in pennsylvania, and second. a thing, to me at least, is how many of the g.o.p. incumbents who were really vulnerable, very controversial, not all that popular in their really and who had credible democratic opponents who were scoring pretty well in polls, how many have survived. people like scott walker in wisconsin, people like governor scott of florida, people like sam brown in kansas, paul in maine. these are governors who were considered really very crediblee to very candidates on the democratic side and they survived. in only one who didn't was pennsylvania. was a specific
3:37 am
partisan wave, which is pretty unusual in my experience in the five or six cycles. muchthink i'll stop there >> so picking up on some of those specific races that you of theed, what were some specific governors races that stood out to you this year? it was unusual that there were so many competitive governor races to begin with. going to go ahead and wisely correct my thoughts, republicanssaid seem to most healthy since world war two, and it really since 1928. think that's significant. i don't know if you saw the map that was going around yesterday, lost 7% of their house members but they lost 29% of the represented. they the big districts like the maine second which is huge. it alllook at the map red with these little your been blue pin pricks here and there. around thethis joke internet yesterday about how g.o.p. now offers more coverage than verizon.
3:38 am
( laughter ) it's definitely true. at the state level as well. up, they had the most legislative seats since 1920. and certainly with the governors it wasn't a huge wave. because it looked like a lot of republicans would be vulnerable. in the lastected wave election in 2010. they were in democratic states and pennsylvania and florida and terry mcauliffe won virginia. and i was thinking about, it it might be an anti-incumbent year, but i think an anti-washington year and anti-obama year. democratic governors like cuomo bebe in arkansas have offered that as their that it wasn, anti-obama. but i started thinking about mo why,nd who lost and because some of the democrats
3:39 am
who were in trouble survived as well. some of the incumbents went on and all the ones you mentioned, rick scott, he had other day about a democrat and republican and inwalk into a bar and the bartender says hi, charlie crist. he never let up on that. he just kept going after him. brownback once he kept hitting paul davis the democrat on obama, never let up. certainly scott walker is very aggressive and worked very hard. and i was thinking rick snyder survived, but he looked like he was in trouble around labor day because he went into behinder makes for the summer, wasn't advertising and then he finally in the game.
3:40 am
suddenly on labor day the whole playing feel changed because the independent and the democrat formed this unity ticket, you know, he thought would it be a race and would win easily and it didn't happen. and then there was the national guard scandal. and the senate race was a 15 million race in a state with so few people. so there wasn't a way for him at that point to define his new opposition. he hadchaud in maine, problem of the independent taking some of the anti-lepage vote, but didn't have a strong message. lepage, he softened his image, he knew he had a problem seemed so combative and he began toning it down. coakley, poor martha
3:41 am
was ay, right, she successful attorney general but she's lost these two high profile races in massachusetts, ted kennedy senate seat in 2009 in the special and now she lost again. to so many questions, illegal immigrant should get drivers licenses or the casino question, she said it.open to and charlie baker was affable and talked about his brother living a gay man and living a married life in massachusetts. democratic messages were just these republicans are just so awful, they cut education, they're extreme on social issues. raceurse the big stunning is maryland. and again, anthony brown was not was lieutenant governor, but he ran a kind of taking it for granted incumbent campaign where he didn't have any kind of positive message. his voters't get
3:42 am
out. if you look at the five biggest biggest -- baltimore city, anne arundel, county,ry and prpbl those are all major population centers, he got 190,000 fewer from those five counties than o'malley got four years ago. so some of the democrats were good on offense. life -- malloy, kept saying his oh point a yacht, rich guy with he doesn't care about you. that ended up winning in illinois. pat quinn tried the same thing. in the end he was smart about suburban counties and there weren't enough votes in chicago to save quinn. candidates year for who were assertive and aggressive, maybe not so grit wanted, not so great for nice.who wanted to may
3:43 am
>> he refused to go negative. >> that's right. have been ranking not just governors races for us, but governors, attorneys general, state superintendents, local school board elections. the same story when we look at some of those down oflot races, this wave anti-democrat, pro republican -- >> pretty much, yeah. in the state a.g. races, the g.o.p. i believe gained two seats and twail pulled into the majority of state a.g. races for memory if not in ever. the state legislatures a gain of nine, could turn into 10 chambers for the g.o.p. even state school there wereents, about a half dozen contested races. in sucheresting ones really red states, wyoming, idaho and so forth. there were frequently kind
3:44 am
party type g.o.p. his, these races against broadly accepted democrats. and the tea party g.o.p. candidates actually took, i think, every single one of those races. terms of the lieutenant governors race, secretary of state races. those went heavily g.o.p. not entirely, in a few blue the democrats could salvage some. but in general it was a very g.o.p.night for the the only ones that are a little different, and we'll get to the initiatives later, issue by issue the democrats and quitels in general did well. the other one with a little statebalance was the supreme court races, the democrats held their own. the g.o.p. took a couple of
3:45 am
seats in states, but in a couple it was even in terms of the number of seats won, the and r's. i think on balance the g.o.p. in then a seat or two states i was tracking, but it was pretty even. road alooking down the little bit, what does that mean when you have this sort of full switch, on down as you said to superintendent secretary of state. republican party. what does that mean looking years in the future? there is a short-term impact and a longer term impact. that att-term impact is a time when the federal government is pretty gridlocked the two parties and not a lot is getting done in the i guessu have east active congress in decade now.t ever right so a lot of the decisions are to theefact to left up
3:46 am
states. so if the democrats have fewer left verdicts of power in the states -- fewer levers of power in the state,. the best thing ever to happen to was to do so well in 2010, because they could draw lines and the state legislatures and in congress as they saw fit. that really locks in at least for 10 years. very favorable lines for the g.o.p. so you have a lot of states democrats don't have any leverage at all because they the governorship or the state house or the state senate. in which some states the democrats do control everything and those are certain will fine for the democrats. term in termsre of the policy impact, if you're not occupying the office you
3:47 am
can't have much of an impact. term impact, and onen't done all the figures this, looking at the statewide offices in general, everything state, statey of a.g., state auditor, these are havees where the democrats historically done well. but you are increasingly seeing making gains on these offices and the more state afices you occupy the more of farm team you have for future politicianings in the state. if the democrats don't have auditor slots, secretary of state slots, state a.g. and they're not in charge of the state house or senate, they don't have any high profile politicianings getting experience, getting name recognition around the state, to future higher office. and it becomes a self fulfilling you don't have a lot of chances to win if you can't put up a good candidate. the system byside
3:48 am
whying folks who own businesses and so forth, but it certainly some sort of policy experience and political experience as you run for higher office. >> alan, do you have other thoughts about the longer term impact? fort right, look to runs governor, sometimes members of congress, but often state a.g.'s ever. and if you don't have that, who runs. there are all these states like so forth where they don't have anybody. but i think we're going to have impact, because in the last couple years we've had this at the mom non, has had gridlock, now vetoes, i'll have guess. states have had tremendous policy movement in different ways. we've had this red state-blue very fewnomenon with divided state. republicans have had abortion andrictions and tax cuts
3:49 am
voter i.d. laws and democrats have this minimum wage increases and gun control measures. now republicans control 23 entirely, governorship and both chambers, plus nebraska. and even in alaska, the i believe was a republican until he became an independent. down to seven states now, they controlled 27 state just after the 2008 election, now it's just seven. so it's 16% of the u.s. and 12% of that is california. states.tiny >> say that again. sf% -- of the u.s. population are is new under democratic cardinal. connecticut, delaware, rhode island, hawaii, oregon. >> vermont? >> vermont, yes. so what's been happening is peep who want to do policy innovation, things have been stuck in washington, they've states.the
3:50 am
but now democrats are going to have a lot fewer places to go. i think we're going to have an age of austerity at the states. think of certain policy issues, it all pretty predictable. you would be see obamacare expanded. there's this tremendous fiscal agree to the medicaid expansion for states, but there's obviously a lot of that law and up,crats had hoped to pick say, maine, and get medicaid not happening. you'll see more opposition to common core, more talk about tax cuts.n and more i was thinking about even among of alsos it is an age austerity, here in washington with the republican congress, going to end the cuts on the military and have more cut wille domestic side, which affect state budgets, and revenue growth at the state for deck been about 6%
3:51 am
a until 2008 and looks like they are not where they were. you're going to have republicans cuttinginterested in taxes further. side,en on the democratic a quote today in the new york, said living the within our means is a heroic continuing bats here. has fought the democratic legislature to keep spending limited. quinn in illinois, he'd cut pensions, but the unions they thuthim because bruce rounder would be worse. the republicans are more conservative on spending in general. >> i would also add, it will be interesting to watch, i think, these g.o.p. governors, especially the new g.o.p. governors in blue or states, how much of a
3:52 am
leash the g.o.p. leadership them. because i would think they'd be from theot of pressure national party leaders to tow the line in terms of obamacare policies, and there's going to be a con flubbing doween how much they can that and stick to the party line while also remaining popular in states which tend to lean blue. >> that's something we talked about earlier this week, that, lou, i think you made the point that this was a slight rarity we saw elections being so in sync with national elections. >> definitely, my sense historically is that voters have been able to kind of electionstalize state and federal elections and not necessarily vote in the same way. state issues tend to be a little aboutent, they tend to be
3:53 am
education funding and road building and not about the congress is talking about. long history in of republican governors in democratic state and democratic governors in they've been, and pragmatic and managed to distinguish themselves from the because they are campaigning on certain issues of statel interest to their and haven't necessarily been tied to their national party. was a way to distinguish themselves. now.is less true in to 14 the election basically wave.up being a national and i think it raises interesting questions about will be abletates own conceptually
3:54 am
different from policies on the federal level. people do the differentiate a lot less. it was a tremendous victory for republicans. should think we overstate that it's a new republican era. i think we're still more likely democratic get a president in 2016. backlectorate keys going and forth. we've had all these wave electionings in a row, 2006, for the democrats, 2010, the republicans. but the country remains pretty evenly divided. don't think -- it is striking. the republicans gained seats in dozen chambers that were up. they certainly took chambers. dividedve more
3:55 am
government at the state level. the republicans have, by my majorities inr different chambers that gained seats in states like ohio and wisconsin. assemblies, the republicans seats in-year high in that chamber the tennessee senate is now 28-5 republican. it really striking. democrats ran on the republicans were too extreme on issues. but a lot of them run on, you cut education, it hurt our schools. some of them were close, but the republicans upon. feel any fear of a backlash from the type much austerity was was talking abouterrier. anif we are coming interest
3:56 am
era where we're on a two track system, the off year elections presidential election years, and the mid terms you elector,ch smaller tend to be whiter, more conservative, and in the presidential years more diverse electorate tends to be more democratic leaning. tbeub torl -- most of the gubernatorial races under the mid term years. democratsmean the will have a harder time in the gubernatorial elections, because only about 10 seats up for the governors in the years.ntial if there's a permanent smaller whiter more conservative in the gubernatorial years, you know, what does that democrats'n terms of ability to win those seats. say, wet want to expected in an off year that it electoratewhiter
3:57 am
than a presidential year. and we've her about the a strong having coalition with african-americans and hispanics and single women elector was not so much more white than between, but the white people voted more republican. there were exit polls in 21 state on senate races. were huge margins for the republicans in all but four of whites.ong kay hagan in north carolina got 33% of the white vote, hard to statewide even in a state minorityrong population. and the democrat share of the white vote was down 10% from 2008. thehat is a problem for party. all the talk about demographics, how the changing country favors the democratic party. but there's still a lot of white voters here. point about the specific candidates who took their success for granted, i think, and you can't take
3:58 am
anything for granted. statet to talk about level ballot initiatives as well andome local elections measures at the local level. but i want to make sure that we a cup questions right now. if you have any questions about talking about. yes. >> (inaudible question). >> so the question kind of about of urbanc distribution democrat votes versus more rural g.o.p. votes. that affect this year's races? >> one thing to note is first of all it one reason we were misled not goinging it was to be a wave election is because such a goodn't do
3:59 am
job in rural places. so in terms of the actual vote, about red states and blue states, we really have red counties. blue i live in missouri where st. city, thesensas little blue coastlines, so to speak along the state borders and 115 or so red counties in between. think it all about two of the eight statewide officials in democrats.e that's why the people live in centers, hence their name. that's a lot of republican territory. so republicans already had a in both chaip bers and they increased it in both places. we have suchy why different maps. in the presidential voting the republicans can only count on texas among the large states. states like california and even new york voted
4:00 am
republican for president. and not such distant future. what has happened is the urban centers, including the dense suburban counties of fairfax county of the world are voting so strongly democratic. but you have small area. so it is hard to draw a map. sometimes you can outvote the rest of the states in statewide races, but you have to turn out to do that. it is a huge challenge for democrats that all of their votes are in very limited places. >> i like that. red states and blue counties. another question? >> --

13 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on